🚀 go-pugleaf

greige@bigpond.com (Greig Ebeling) wrote:

>On Fri, 02 Jun 2000 17:01:27 GMT, none (Quarks like a duck) wrote:

>>"Dewey & Lucy Thompson" <dlthompson@socket.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You are very confused here, or at least your facts are very confused.  More
>>>is known about radiation hazards, effects, and interaction with matter than
>>>any other single hazard known to man.  
>>
>>
>>Give me a  break you asshole! Please go on a live broadcast with me to
>>debate the issues. That one statement right there will have the
>>audience laughing at you.

>Why would anyone want to debate with you, let alone listen to the
>debate?  You don't know anything about your subject matter, and seem
>intent only on abusing people.

Those pesky state politicans are so emotional!

http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/yucca/ymsum01.htm

"Nuclear criticality (endnote 5)occurs when neutrons from
"fissionable" radioactive materials (such as certain isotopes of
uranium and plutonium) bombard each other with such repetition that
they spark a runaway "chain reaction." Some scientists have suggested,
based on theoretical calculations, that highly radioactive waste
emplaced in a Yucca Mountain repository could, under certain
circumstances, reach nuclear criticality and possibly explode. The
criticality is reached when fissionable materials released from the
waste containers are concentrated in high silica rock like the
volcanic tuff at Yucca Mountain. The Agency and the NRC are concerned
about the potential of repository nuclear criticality and its effects
on public health and safety and the environment. Agency technical
personnel do not believe that DOE has adequately assessed the
potential for such an event, is not properly considering criticality
control in its waste package design, and is not incorporating the
issue into repository performance models that will be used for
assessing repository risks."

>>>Radiation is hazardous, it does cause
>>>immediate and delayed effects, however the risks of those are very low in
>>>relation to most other hazards in the world today, indeed, there is mounting
>>>evidence that the risks are grossly overstated.  (Of course the "anti" crowd
>>>will parade out their pseudo-scientists to show the deadly hazards).  I
>>>prefer to listen to true scientists.
>>
>>There is growing evidence in both camps to support opposite
>>conclusions. 
>>
>>>> so then they propose deeper burial and vitrification, turns out that
>>>> vitrification does not work as the radiation and heat produced by the
>>>waste
>>>> produce micro fissures in the vitrified mass, allowing water in and
>>>> radioactive waste out. now its even deeper burial, still with unresolved
>>>> questions and site selection problems, also there is the inevitable
>>>> pollution from the waste reprocessing plants and fuel refining and mining
>>>> facilities, the more nuclear power reactors the more reprocessing
>>>> facilities and so on.
>>
>>>The unresolved site selection process are mainly due to unrelenting attacks
>>>by the "anti" crowd who will accept only one answer "NO NUCLEAR", and will
>>>attack all angles to shut down the industry.  The waste issue was grabbed
>>>onto a number of years ago as the best "tactical" avenue.
>>>>
>>>> we already have several yucca mountains worth of high level waste piled up
>>>> around the world. sure the problems of waste disposal have been solved,
>>>> that is why so much of it has been disposed of in such responsible ways.
>>
>>>It has built up because up until quite recently there was little pressure to
>>> forge ahead.  Now that pressure is building.
>>
>>And because know one knew (and currently) knows how to solve the waste
>>issue.

>The willingness of people to disseminate inaccurate information, as
>'none' does, and the anti-nuclear political movement such
>disinformation supports, is the sole impediment to successful nuclear
>waste disposal.

>>>>
>>>> ignore greigs rantings, he is seriously out of touch with the current
>>>state
>>>> of the art in energy generation  and the increasing public opposition to
>>>> the use of nuclear power, funny, the more educated and technically
>>>literate
>>>> the public becomes the less popular nuclear power becomes.
>>
>>>Actually, you have it exactly backwards.  The more educated and technically
>>>literate the public becomes, the less popular the "anti" crowd and their
>>>mis-information becomes.
>>
>>You are completely abou- face. The original poster is correct.

>The problem here is how one defines "educated and technically
>literate".  No doubt anyone who can trot out the nonsense that ant and
>none consider valid, are "educated" from their point of view.  In my
>opinion, having an engineering degree, attending seminars on energy
>issues, and speaking regularly with experts on energy production and
>distribution, is a minimum to being abreast of the issue.


>>> > with such a huge liability(the invisible nature of radiation and its
>>>often
>>>> delayed effects) to counter and no cold war to drive the propaganda mills
>>>> it really is inevitable that nuclear power technology will become less
>>>> important in our future.
>>
>>>"The invisible nature of radiations delayed effects"?.  Just WHO is spouting
>>>"propaganda" here?
>>
>>You!

>It's all a matter of perspective.


>...Greig